Obama rode in on a huge wave of dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republicans. People vote the pocketbook and 2008 was a bad economy. If we go into 2010 with unemployment over 10% it will be bad news for incumbents.
The Obama administration does not place enough importance on job creation. It's the economy stupid. If unemployment were under 7 percent and dropping, none of the other BS would be getting traction.
The MA Senate election is misdiagnosed. It is a referendum on JOBS (the lack of them). If unemployment was starting to come down below 10 percent, all the other BS would not matter. Voters who see all the spending and no JOBS think we are not getting our money's worth. If we spent twice as much and started creating JOBS, then spending would not be a problem. Voters would start to feel we are getting our money's worth. I don't think our elites understand JOBS. This is the BIG difference between Obama and Bill Clinton. Clinton put JOBS first. Clinton survived impeachment because of low unemployment.
If Obama would come out and say the the results are a demand to do something about unemployment, he could turn up the heat on Congress to pass a better JOBS bill. IF the Dems go into the November election with unemployment still over 10 percent (our economy is STILL losing JOBS) then it will be an even bigger loss.
I wonder if he has clients that want health care reform to pass? The long term is not sustainable for insurance companies. Their pool of purchasers is declining as they get better at turfing people with pre-existing conditions.
The rising costs are not sustainable for employers either.
Dems need to respond by demonizing right wing organizations that are the equivalent of ACORN. Of course, the left lacks the media megaphone, but for media that likes "balance" can we find them a right wing target that might make the GOP cautious about a round of tit for tat?
The Rude Pundit is also on the same wavelength. The rude version:
"Or, in other words, ex-Governor, the death panel is there. It's called "the profit margin." Indeed, if the Grukos were a bit poorer, they'd qualify for government-run health care. Which would ensure that their daughter gets the care she needs. Denial of private insurance coverage because of Down's syndrome is unsurprisingly common. That's called "rationing."
Or, in otherer words, ex-Governor, now that you're out of a job, and by the time your COBRA runs out, and you're applying for new health insurance policies, Trig better hope that pre-existing conditions clauses or excessive risk denials don't bite his mom on her lying ass."
Clinton was referring to the US support of dictators over democracy in Pakistan. That is one thing that is incoherent. The other is the large amount of money Reagan used to train fundamentalists in "terrorist" tactics. The intent was to force the Soviets out, but the long term result is blowback to the US. These are the same fundamentalists that the US is now fighting.
A second dose of General Sherman would cure what ails them. General Sherman demonstrated to the South why Federal protection and rule of law was better than secession. The South has not tried secession since. War is Hell.